---

               C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R
  
               Wednesday, March 19, 2003, Vol. 5, No. 55

                            Headlines                            


ADVANCED LIGHTING: OH Court Approves Settlement of Securities Lawsuit
AVISTA CORPORATION: To Ask WA Court To Dismiss Securities Fraud Lawsuit
AVISTA UTILITIES: Faces Suit Over California Energy Prices in W.D. WA
BAYER AG: Faces Several Securities Fraud Suits Over Baycol in S.D. NY
CALIFORNIA: Los Angeles Settles Foster Care Suit, Promises Improvement

HUB GROUP: Plaintiffs Don't Appeal, IL Securities Suit Dismissal Final
IMCLONE SYSTEMS: Ex-CEO Waksal Reaches Partial Settlement For SEC Suit
IMS HEALTH: Faces Suit Over Misappropriation of Pharmacies' Trade Data
INSIGHT COMMUNICATIONS: Court Grants Approval To KY Lawsuit Settlement
LEXMARK INTERNATIONAL: No Appeal Filed, Securities Suit Dismissal Final

LOCKERBIE BOMBING: Libya Accepts Responsibility, Settlement Draws Near
NATIONWIDE FINANCIAL: Plaintiff Appeals Court's Summary Judgment Order
NATIONWIDE FINANCIAL: CT Court Allows Filing of Amended Securities Suit
NATIONWIDE LIFE: PA Court Holds Fairness Hearing For Provident Lawsuit
NAVIGANT CONSULTING: Court Authorizes Funds For Securities Settlement

NAVIGANT CONSULTING: Agrees To Settle CA Securities Suit For $1.35M
NEW HAMPSHIRE: Merrimack Town To Launch Suit Over Number Of Exit Tolls
SHERWIN WILLIAMS: Faces Several Lawsuits Over Lead-Based Paint in RI
THOMAS & BETTS: TN Securities Violations Suit Settlement Deemed Final
VERSATA INC.: CA Court Grants Approval To Securities Lawsuit Settlement


                     Meetings, Conferences & Seminars


* Scheduled Events for Class Action Professionals
* Online Teleconferences


                     New Securities Fraud Cases


ANDRX CORPORATION: Bernard Gross Commences Securities Suit in S.D. FL
ADC TELECOMMUNICATIONS: Kirby McInerney Commences Securities Suit in MN
ADC TELECOMMUNICATIONS: Charles Piven Commences Securities Suit in MN
ASTROPOWER INC.: Abbey Gardy Launches Securities Fraud Suit in DE Court
BAYER AG: Charles Piven Commences Securities Fraud Lawsuit in S.D. NY

BAYER AG: Wolf Popper Commences Securities Fraud Suit in S.D. New York
CAMINUS CORPORATION: Charles Piven Commences Securities Suit in S.D. NY
CAMINUS CORPORATION: Milberg Weiss Commences Securities Suit in S.D. NY
INTERCEPT INC.: Bernstein Liebhard Commences Securities Suit in N.D. GA
INTERSTATE BAKERIES: Milberg Weiss Commences Securities Suit in W.D. MO

KING PHARMACEUTICALS: Charles Piven Launches Securities Suit in E.D. TN
KING PHARMACEUTICALS: Kirby McInerney Commences Securities Suit in TN
MICHAELS STORES: Federman & Sherwood Lodges Securities Suit in N.D. TX
ROBERTSON STEPHENS: Pomerantz Haudek Lodges Securities Suit in S.D. NY
ROYAL AHOLD: Pomerantz Haudek Launches Securities Fraud Suit in S.D. NY

                           *********

ADVANCED LIGHTING: OH Court Approves Settlement of Securities Lawsuit
---------------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Northern District of Ohio
granted final approval to the settlement proposed by Advanced Lighting
Technologies, Inc. to settle the consolidated securities class action
filed against it and its Chief Executive Officer.

The consolidated suit, filed on behalf of themselves and purported
classes consisting of Company shareholders, other than the defendants
and their affiliates, who purchased stock during the period from
December30, 1997 through September30, 1998 or various portions thereof,
alleges generally that certain disclosures attributed to the Company
contained misstatements and omissions alleged to be violations of
Section10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5.  

Specifically, the suit alleges claims for "fraud on the market" arising
from alleged misrepresentations and omissions with respect to the
Company's financial performance and prospects and alleged violations of
generally accepted accounting principles by, among other things,
improperly recognizing revenue and improper inventory accounting.  The
suit sought certification of the purported class, unspecified
compensatory and punitive damages, pre- and post-judgment interest and
attorneys' fees and costs.

On January 17, 2003, the judge presiding over all pending shareholder
litigation entered a final order approving the settlement and
dismissing all of the plaintiffs' claims with prejudice.  The
settlement included a payment of $8.4 million in cash, all of which was
paid by the Company's insurance carriers.  The settlement does not
constitute any admission of wrongdoing on the part of the Company or
the individual defendants.


AVISTA CORPORATION: To Ask WA Court To Dismiss Securities Fraud Lawsuit
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Avista Corporation intends to ask the United States District Court for
the Eastern District of Washington to dismiss the consolidated
securities class action pending against it and:

     (1) Thomas M. Matthews, the former Chairman of the Board,
         President and Chief Executive Officer of the Company,

     (2) Gary G. Ely, the current Chairman of the Board, President and
         Chief Executive Officer of the Company, and

     (3) Jon E. Eliassen, the former Senior Vice President and Chief
         Financial Officer of the Company

The consolidated suit asserts violations of the federal securities laws
in connection with alleged misstatements and omissions of material fact
pursuant to Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of
1934.  In particular, the plaintiffs allege that the Company failed to
disclose certain business practices that it was allegedly engaging in
with Enron Power Marketing, Inc. and Pacific Gas & Energy.  

The plaintiffs assert that such alleged misstatements and omissions
have occurred in the Company's filings with the Securities and Exchange
Commission and other information made publicly available by the
Company, including press releases.  The suit asserts claims on behalf
of all persons who purchased, converted, exchanged or otherwise
acquired the Company's common stock during the period between November
23, 1999 and August 13, 2002.  

On February 3, 2003, the court issued an order consolidating the
complaints under the name "In re Avista Corp. Securities Litigation."  
On February 7, 2003, the court appointed the lead plaintiff and co-lead
counsel. The Company intends to vigorously defend against these
lawsuits.


AVISTA UTILITIES: Faces Suit Over California Energy Prices in W.D. WA
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Avista Utilities was named as a defendant in a class action filed in
the United States District Court for the Western District of Washington
against numerous purchasers and sellers of wholesale electricity and
natural gas in the western United States.

The suit asserts claims on behalf of all persons and businesses
residing in Washington who were purchasers of electric and/or natural
gas energy from any period beginning in January 2000 to the present.  
The complaint alleges that due to the deregulation of the California
energy market, the defendants were able to unlawfully manipulate the
wholesale energy market resulting in supply shortages and high energy
prices across the western United States, including Washington.

The complaint further alleges that high energy prices have resulted in
profits for the defendants at the expense of rate-paying consumers in
Washington.  The complaint seeks treble damages, attorney fees and
costs, and an order that defendants immediately remedy the alleged
unlawful practices relating to the purchase and sale of wholesale
energy that affects rate-paying consumers in Washington.

The complaint further seeks an order enjoining the defendants from
continuing any alleged unlawful practices relating to the purchase and
sale of wholesale energy that affects rate-paying consumers in
Washington.  The Company intends to file a motion to dismiss this
complaint and vigorously defend against this lawsuit.


BAYER AG: Faces Several Securities Fraud Suits Over Baycol in S.D. NY
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Bayer AG faces several class actions filed in the United States
District Court for the Southern District of New York by US
shareholders, alleging the Company covered up information about Baycol,
which has been linked to more than 100 deaths worldwide.  The suits
name as defendants the Company, Chief Executive Werner Wenning and
former CEO Manfred Schneider, Reuters reports.

The suit alleges the defendants omitted and misrepresented factual
information regarding Baycol.  The Company's statements were allegedly
"materially false and misleading because Bayer AG's own scientists were
stating internally that Baycol, when administered with other popular
medications or at high dosages, caused unacceptable risk of serious
side effects. In fact, throughout the class period Bayer AG was
informed that patients taking Baycol were experiencing serious and life
threatening side effects."  

The omissions allegedly artificially inflated the prices of Bayer's
American Depositary Shares (ADSs) to the detriment of holders.  The
suit seeks to recover damages on behalf of investors who bought Bayer
ADSs on the Nasdaq from May 26, 1999, to January 23, 2002, or on the
New York Stock Exchange from January 24, 2002, through February 21,
2003, Reuters states.

The suit adds to the company's woes, as the firm is already facing
claims for damages from Baycol patients that analysts believe will
reach billions of dollars, Reuters states.  Shares in the group, which
unveils 2002 results on Thursday, dropped 10 percent to 10.30 euros on
news of the latest legal threat, their lowest levels in more than a
decade.

Industry analysts say the claims were not unexpected.  There is a long
history of companies being sued by investors in the United States after
major corporate debacles.

"As with the other suits over the drug, it is impossible to predict the
outcome, but obviously there is going to be this continuing negative
newsflow around the shares -- and in the current mood of the market it
doesn't go down too well," Colin Isaac, chemicals analyst at JP Morgan
in London told Reuters.

Share traders in Frankfurt said investors were fleeing Bayer stock on
the company's continuing woes, with few expecting any significant
positive news to emerge from the company's results presentation on
March 13.  "Bayer has taken a sharp downturn on this lawsuit story. It
looks bad for the stock and adds to existing concern with all the
Baycol stories," a trader in Frankfurt told Reuters.

The Company recalled Baycol, called Lipobay outside the United States,
in August 2001 after it was initially linked to 50 deaths, and was
connected to a rare, fatal muscle condition called rhabdomyolysis.  
Bayer faces 7,800 lawsuits over the drug, and has settled 450 out of
court for about $125 million.  Lawyers for Bayer in the United States
say they are in talks to settle 500 more cases out of court, Reuters
states.

Earlier this month, documents presented in Texas federal court revealed
that executives knew about the side effects of Baycol even as it pushed
to expand sales.  Memos and emails described a growing number of
reports that Bayer patients were developing rhabdomyolysis at a much
higher rate than with other anti-cholesterol drugs.  Analysts say that
if negligence is established, it could render any insurance cover for
the damages null and void, Reuters states.


CALIFORNIA: Los Angeles Settles Foster Care Suit, Promises Improvement
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Los Angeles officials recently settled a class action over its troubled
foster care program, and entered into an agreement whereby they would
try to keep children with their families by providing expanded
psychological and support services, the Houston Chronicle reports.

The agreement is to be monitored quarterly by a federal judge and a
six-member advisory panel.  It calls for the promptly meeting the
mental health needs of the children in their own homes or in family-
like foster care settings.  The agreement also provides for services
and support to families to prevent the need for foster care.

"The overarching philosophy of this agreement may be simply stated:  
The role of the government is to preserve families, not replace them,"
said Mark Rosenbaum, legal director of the American Civil Liberties
Union (ACLU) of Southern California.

"Far too many of our county's children who needed the stable nurturing
of family love have been bounced between multiple foster placements and
group homes that did not meet their needs," said Mr. Rosenbaum.  Mr.
Rosenbaum pointed out that children were actually consigned to languish
in facilities such as the "infamous MacLaren Children's Center under
deplorable conditions."

As part of the agreement, officials finally closed MacLaren, which has
been overrun with scandals of abuse.

County Supervisor Zev Yarosavsky said of the agreement and its terms by
which Los Angeles has bound itself, that "It is a quantum leap into the
future in the services to kids.  Kids with mental health and other
issues are going to get the service they deserve."

The agreement seems to touch all the bases of informed care.  It
requires social workers to use a research-based tool known as
"structured decision making" to help improve the consistency and
accuracy of their decisions, and expands family-based "wraparound"
services to help children with intensive needs.

Referring to the agreement, Supervisor Gloria Molina said, "This is a
tremendous victory for children."  Under the agreement, the county will
use the $17 million in savings from closing MacLaren to expand a
variety of support programs and home services for the 1,500 deeply
troubled children who went to MacLaren each year.

The lawsuit also names the state Department of Social Services as a
defendant.  Mr. Rosenbaum said including the Department as a named
defendant, covered by the lawsuit and the agreement stemming therefrom,
will enable the ACLU to begin work on reforming the state's foster-care
system.


HOME LANDS: Lawsuit Filed By Future Homesteaders Over Unsettled Claims
----------------------------------------------------------------------
More than 1,300 cases were left unprocessed when authorization for the
Individual Review Panel of the Home Lands Trust expired in 1999.  As a
result, would-be Hawaiian homesteaders filed a class action seeking to
settle the outstanding claims.  The case is now pending before the
state Supreme Court, the Associated Press Newswires reports.

Meanwhile, a bill to appoint a special master to complete the review of
claims is being considered by the House Committee on Water, Land Use
and Hawaiian Affairs, which seemed ready to approve the bill for a
floor vote this coming week.  The bill already has been passed in the
Senate.

Rep. Cynthia Thielen, R-Kaneohe-Kailua, said appointment of a special
master to review the claims would be a quicker way of handling the
dispute than re-instituting the claims panel.  Thomas Grande, an
attorney representing the plaintiffs in the class action, said it would
also be less expensive.  Mr. Grande estimated it would cost up to $4.3
million for another Review Panel to process the more than 1,300 claims
remaining, while using a special master would cost about $1.6 million.


HUB GROUP: Plaintiffs Don't Appeal, IL Securities Suit Dismissal Final
----------------------------------------------------------------------
The dismissal of the securities class action pending against Hub Group,
Inc. is deemed final after the plaintiffs agreed not to file an amended
suit on the deadline appointed by the United States District Court for
the Northern District of Illinois, Eastern Division.

The suit was commenced in February 2002, alleging that the defendants
violated Section 10 (b) and Rule 10b-5 there under and section 20 (a)
of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 by filing or causing to be filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission periodic reports that
contained inaccurate financial statements, an earlier Class Action
Reporter story states.

In July 2002, the Company and its officers and former officers filed a
motion to dismiss the amended complaint in its entirety.  The Company's
former auditors also filed a motion to dismiss the suit.  On October
23, 2002, the court granted the Company's motion to dismiss the
complaint in its entirety for failing to allege facts sufficient to
state a claim.  The court also granted the motion of the Company's
former auditors.

The court's order required plaintiffs to file any amended complaint by
November 22, 2002.  The plaintiffs did not file an amended complaint by
this date and agreed that they would not appeal the court's order of
October 23, 2002 dismissing the lawsuit.


IMCLONE SYSTEMS: Ex-CEO Waksal Reaches Partial Settlement For SEC Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Former ImClone Systems, Inc. CEO Samuel Waksal, reached a partial
settlement of insider trading charges with the United States Securities
and Exchange Commission, Reuters reports.  
in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New
York against the Company and certain of its officers and directors,
alleging federal securities violations.

On December 28, 2001, the Company shocked the market by issuing a press
release that disclosed that the FDA had rejected its filing of a
Biologics License Application (BLA) for Erbitux.  The first trading day
after the issuance of the press release, on December 31, 2001, Company
shares plummeted $11.15, or 20%, to $44.10.

On January 4, 2002, The Cancer Letter revealed the true contents of the
FDA's December 28, 2001 letter to the Company, including the fact that
the Company was repeatedly informed about the problems with the
clinical trials by the FDA during the class period.  After these
additional facts were disclosed, Company shares fell further to open on
January 7, 2002 at $34.96 per share, an earlier Class Action Reporter
story states.

Mr. Waksal allegedly tried to sell Imclone shares worth about $5
million, before news broke of the denial of the BLA for Erbitux, the
Company's main experimental cancer drug.  The insider trading scandal
has touched family and friends, including home decorating expert Martha
Stewart.  Federal authorities are investigating Ms. Stewart, but have
not charged her with any wrongdoing.

Under the deal, Mr. Waksal agreed to be barred from being an officer or
director of any publicly traded company and to repay $804,367 in losses
avoided by the sales of ImClone stock in his daughter Aliza's account,
plus interest and his profits from the options transactions.  Mr.
Waksal, 55, did not admit or deny guilt, the SEC said.  The partial
settlement still needs a federal judge's approval.

The SEC will expand the original suit filed in June to add charges that
Mr. Waksal also bought 210 ImClone put option contracts through a Swiss
brokerage account before the bad news broke.  The commission said the
partial settlement resolves civil accusations that Mr. Waksal tried to
sell his own shares, the options transactions, and the sale of shares
in his daughter Aliza's account, Reuters states.

"We are glad that we have been able to reach this settlement with the
SEC and that Dr. Waksal will be able to put this part of the legal
issues behind him," Lewis Liman, a lawyer representing him, told
Reuters.

The settlement will not stop the SEC from seeking unspecified penalties
against Mr. Waksal and does not resolve the accusation that he tipped a
family member other than his daughter, said Helene Glotzer, assistant
regional director of the SEC's office in New York.  "The investigation
is continuing," she told Reuters.


IMS HEALTH: Faces Suit Over Misappropriation of Pharmacies' Trade Data
----------------------------------------------------------------------
IMS Health, Inc. was named as a defendant, along with approximately 50
software vendors from which the Company purchased prescription data in
the 1990's, and, for many of these vendors, from which the Company
continues to purchase data, in a class action, alleging the Company
misappropriated the trade secrets (i.e., prescription data) of
thousands of pharmacies in the United States and used this information
either without authorization or outside the scope of any authorization.

This same conduct is alleged to breach contracts between the Company
and the software vendors from which the Company had purchased this
prescription data.  The action has been brought by two pharmacies.  
Plaintiffs are seeking class action status, representing all pharmacies
whose data was sold to the Company by their pharmacy dispensary
software vendors from 1990 to the present.

The pharmacies are seeking $100,000 in actual damages plus an
unspecified amount of unjust enrichment damages (i.e., share of the
Company profits) derived from use of the prescription data by the
Company and the other defendants, or, in the alternative, a reasonable
royalty paid for the use of the prescription data.

The Company is currently investigating the circumstances surrounding
the claims and is unable at this time to predict the manner in which
this matter may eventually be resolved or, if resolved adversely to the
Company, the range of possible liability.  However, the Company
believes that its practices with respect to the acquisition and use of
this prescription data are consistent with applicable law and industry
practices, and that the claims are without merit.


INSIGHT COMMUNICATIONS: Court Grants Approval To KY Lawsuit Settlement
----------------------------------------------------------------------
The Jefferson County Court in Kentucky granted final court approval to
the settlement proposed by Insight Communications, Inc. subsidiary
Insight Kentucky to settle the consolidated class action charging it
and certain prior owners of the Kentucky systems, including affiliates
of AT&T Broadband.

The suit generally alleges that the Kentucky systems have improperly
passed through state and local property tax charges to customers.  The
plaintiffs in these actions seek monetary damages and the enjoinment of
the collection of such taxes.

The Company entered into agreements with plaintiffs' counsel to settle
these lawsuits.  The settlements will not have a material effect on the
Company's results of operations.


LEXMARK INTERNATIONAL: No Appeal Filed, Securities Suit Dismissal Final
----------------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Eastern District of Kentucky's
decision dismissing the consolidated securities class action against
Lexmark International, Inc. is deemed final, after plaintiffs failed to
appeal the decision.

In late 2001, the Company and certain of its officers and directors
were named as defendants in four substantially identical securities
class actions, which were later consolidated.  The consolidated suit
sought unspecified damages on behalf of a purported class consisting of
purchasers of the Company's stock during the period March 20, 2001
through October 22, 2001.

Plaintiffs alleged that the defendants made false and misleading
statements about the Company's business and financial performance in
violation of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) (as well as Rule 10b-5) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934.

By Opinion and Order dated November 8, 2002, the Court granted the
defendants' motion to dismiss the consolidated suit with prejudice.


LOCKERBIE BOMBING: Libya Accepts Responsibility, Settlement Draws Near
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Libya has agreed with the United States and Britain to accept civil
responsibility for the 1988 Lockerbie bombing, and to compensate
victims' relatives, a source close to the talks said, Reuters reports.  
The deal would end a lingering dispute between the West and an Arab
state shortly before a likely US-led war against Iraq.

259 passengers, mostly American, were killed when a Pan Am flight over
the Scottish town of Lockerbie exploded in mid-air in 1988.  11 people
were killed on the ground.  Glasgow police later apprehended a Libyan
agent, Abdel Baset al-Megrahi, for planting the bomb which brought down
the plane.  Mr. al-Megrahi is now serving a minimum of 20 years in a
Glasgow jail, but he continues to maintain his innocence.

"History is in the making.  A deal could be announced at any moment,"
the source told Reuters after US Assistant Secretary of State William
Burns met Libyan and British officials in London.

Under the arrangement, Libya would compensate the families of the
victims.  Tripoli would pay up to $10 million per victim into a special
trust account in return for a series of steps to remove UN and United
States sanctions against it, the source continued.  That would make the
total value of the settlement roughly $2.7 billion if all conditions
were met.

The source also told Reuters a breakthrough in the talks came when
Libya was convinced that it would be accepting civil liability for the
acts of a state employee but not criminal responsibility for the
Lockerbie bombing.

Under the agreement, Tripoli would reportedly initially pay $4 million
per victim into an escrow account once United Nations sanctions against
Libya, suspended after the Lockerbie trial, were formally lifted.  
Another $4 million would follow if the United States removed its
national sanctions against Libya, which remain in force.  A final $2
million would be paid if Washington also repealed its Iran-Libya
Sanctions Act.

Finally, the source said that if the United States failed to lift those
measures within eight months, Libya would pay only $1 million extra
into the account, limiting its total payment to $5 million per victim.

The British Foreign Office had no immediate comment on the outcome of
the talks, Reuters said.  Washington, a State Department official
confirmed the London talks had taken place and said, "It was a useful
session and we made further progress."  However, the official declined
to give details.


NATIONWIDE FINANCIAL: Plaintiff Appeals Court's Summary Judgment Order
----------------------------------------------------------------------
A plaintiff appealed the Ohio State Court's decision granting summary
judgment in Nationwide Financial Services, Inc.'s favor, in the class
action filed against the Company, Nationwide Life Insurance Company and
Nationwide Life and Annuity Insurance Company. Originally, the suit was
filed on behalf of all persons who purchased individual deferred
annuity contracts or participated in group annuity contracts sold by
the Company and the other named Company affiliates, which were used to
fund certain tax-deferred retirement plans.  The suit seeks unspecified
compensatory and punitive damages.

In June 1999, the Company and the other named defendants filed a motion
to dismiss the amended complaint, which the court denied.  In January
2002, the plaintiffs filed a motion for leave to amend their complaint
to add three new named plaintiffs.

In February 2002, the plaintiffs filed a motion for class
certification.  In April 2002, the Company filed a motion for summary
judgment on the individual claims of plaintiff Mercedes Castillo.  In
May 2002, the court granted the motion of one of the lead plaintiffs
Marcus Shore to withdraw as a named plaintiff and denied plaintiffs'
motion to add new persons as named plaintiffs, so the action is now
proceeding with Mercedes Castillo as the only named plaintiff.

On November 4, 2002, the court issued a decision granting the Company's
motion for summary judgment on all of plaintiff Mercedes Castillo's
individual claims, and ruling that plaintiff's motion for class
certification is moot.  Judgment for the Company was entered on
November 15, 2002.

On December 16, 2002, Ms. Castillo filed a notice of appeal from the
court's orders granting the Company's motion for summary judgment and
denying her motion for leave to amend the complaint to add three new
named plaintiffs.  The Company's responsive brief is due by April 23,
2003 and plaintiff's reply brief is due by May 12, 2003.


NATIONWIDE FINANCIAL: CT Court Allows Filing of Amended Securities Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
The Connecticut federal court allowed plaintiffs in the class action
pending against Nationwide Financial Services, Inc. and Nationwide Life
Insurance Company (NLIC) to file an amended suit.

The suit was initially commenced in August 2001, seeking to represent a
class of retirement plans that purchased variable annuities from NLIC
to fund qualified Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA)
retirement plans.  The suit alleges:

     (1) that the retirement plans purchased variable annuity contracts
         from the Company that allowed plan participants to invest in
         funds that were offered by separate mutual fund companies;

     (2) that the Company was a fiduciary under ERISA and that the
         Company breached its fiduciary duty when it accepted certain
         fees from the mutual fund companies that purportedly were
         never disclosed by the Company; and

     (3) that the Company violated ERISA by replacing many of the funds
         originally included in the plaintiff's annuities with
         "inferior" funds because the new funds purportedly paid higher
         fees to the Company.

The amended complaint seeks disgorgement of the fees allegedly received
by the Company and other unspecified compensatory damages, declaratory
and injunctive relief and attorney's fees.  On December 3, 2001, the
plaintiffs filed a motion for class certification.  The Company is
opposing that motion.

The Company filed a motion to dismiss the suit, but the court denied
this motion in September 2002.  On January 14, 2003, plaintiffs filed a
motion to file a second amended complaint and the motion was granted on
February 21, 2003.  The second amended complaint removes the claims
asserted against the Company concerning a violation of ERISA through
the replacement of many of the funds originally included in the
plaintiffs' annuities with "inferior" funds that purportedly paid
higher fees to the Company.  


NATIONWIDE LIFE: PA Court Holds Fairness Hearing For Provident Lawsuit
----------------------------------------------------------------------
The Court of Common Pleas in Philadelphia County, Pennsylvania heard
arguments for the approval of a settlement proposed by Nationwide Life
Insurance Company of America (NLICA) to settle two class actions
pending against it.

The first suit, entitled "Butler v. Provident Mutual Life Insurance
Company," was filed in January 1999, challenging the plan of Provident
to convert from a mutual life insurance company into a stock life
insurance company owned by a mutual holding company.  After the court
entered an order on September 16, 1999 enjoining the completion of this
plan without further disclosures to policyholders, the plaintiffs filed
an amended complaint in the Summer of 2002 demanding that Provident
consummate a proposed sponsored demutualization with the Company.

NLICA is also a nominal defendant in a derivative suit entitled
"Provident Mutual Life Insurance Company derivatively by Smith v.
Kloss" that was filed in July 2000 in the same court.  Plaintiffs claim
that Provident's directors breached their fiduciary duties and should
be compelled to pursue a demutualization of Provident.

The parties to the "Butler" and "Smith" cases entered into a
stipulation of settlement dated October 9, 2002 and the court granted
preliminary approval of that settlement.  Under that stipulation
of settlement, the parties have agreed to a resolution of all the class
and derivative claims asserted in both actions.  


NAVIGANT CONSULTING: Court Authorizes Funds For Securities Settlement
---------------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois
authorized the distribution of all settlement funds for the agreement
proposed by Navigant Consulting, Inc. for the consolidated securities
class action pending against it and its former and current officers and
directors.

In August 2000, the Company agreed to settle the suit for US$23
million.  The Company's contribution to the settlement was US$16.5
million, with the insurance companies contributing US$6.5 million.  The
federal court approved this settlement in March 2001.  The Company
subsequently recovered from one of its insurers an additional
contribution of $4.0 million, which it agreed to share with the class
on a 50/50 basis, net of the Company's costs.

All settlement funds were paid into escrow pending final resolution of
appeals and distribution issues.  In July 2002 the last pending appeal
was resolved.


NAVIGANT CONSULTING: Agrees To Settle CA Securities Suit For $1.35M
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Navigant Consulting, Inc. agreed to settle for US$1.35 million, without
any admission of liability, a securities class action pending against
it in California State Court.  

The suit, filed in 2000 against the Company and two of its former
officers, alleges that in 1999 the defendants improperly prevented
stockholders from hedging approximately 40,000 shares of the Company's
stock.  They seek compensatory and punitive damages from defendants
based on various theories, an earlier Class Action Reporter story
states.



NEW HAMPSHIRE: Merrimack Town To Launch Suit Over Number Of Exit Tolls
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Robert L'Heureux, a Republican, thinks the other Merrimack legislators
should join with him to launch a class action against the state of New
Hampshire, charging the state with treating Merrimack unfairly because
of the number of exit tolls the town has along the Everett Turnpike.

Merrimack residents and commuters, said Mr. L'Heureux, have to pay
tolls at three exit ramps, more than any other town in the region.  The
House just this week killed a plan to get rid of exit tolls altogether
and raise the gas tax to make up for the lost revenue.

"I hate to say this, but we are not going to get relief, and we will
never get it," Mr. L'Heureux recently told his fellow legislators on
the Board of Selectmen.

He has been trying get rid of Merrimack's ramp tolls for years.  Mr.
L'Heureux said the residents and commuters are being discriminated
against by the state by being forced to pay 50 cents at tolls at
exit ramps 10, 11 and 12.  The town has more exit ramps than any
other town in the region.

Fellow Republican Rep. John Gibson said Mr. L'Heureux is right.  "I am
not a fan of sending things to court," said Mr. Gibson, "but it is
the only way to try to get relief, the Selectman said.

The Selectmen did not, as a body, discuss Mr. L'Heureux's proposal to
sue the state.  This is not the first time he has suggested taking the
state to court.  Three years ago, Mr. L'Heureux urged selectmen to sue
the state, but the board never acted on the request on the advice of
the town's attorneys, who said the board did not have grounds for a
lawsuit.

However, being forewarned by the advice given by the town's attorneys
three years ago, Mr. L'Heureux, when presenting his proposal to the
Board of Selectmen last week, said the town should hire lawyers who
specialize in toll issues and who will find the grounds for their
lawsuit aimed at banishing the discriminatory ramp tolls.


SHERWIN WILLIAMS: Faces Several Lawsuits Over Lead-Based Paint in RI
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Sherwin Williams Company was named as a defendant, along with other
companies, in a number of legal proceedings, including purported class
actions, separate actions brought by the State of Rhode Island, and
actions brought by various counties, cities, school districts and other
government-related entities, arising from the manufacture and sale of
lead pigments and lead-based paints.  The plaintiffs are seeking
recovery based upon various legal theories, including:

     (1) negligence,

     (2) strict liability,

     (3) breach of warranty,

     (4) negligent misrepresentations and omissions,

     (5) fraudulent misrepresentations and omissions,

     (6) concert of action,

     (7) civil conspiracy,

     (8) violations of unfair trade practices and consumer protection
         laws,

     (9) enterprise liability,

    (10) market share liability,

    (11) nuisance,

    (12) unjust enrichment and

    (13) other theories

The plaintiffs seek various damages and relief, including personal
injury and property damage, costs relating to the detection and
abatement of lead-based paint from buildings, costs associated with a
public education campaign, medical monitoring costs and others.

During September 2002, a jury trial commenced in the first phase of the
action brought by the State of Rhode Island against the Company and the
other defendants.  The sole issue before the court in this first phase
was whether lead pigment in paint constitutes a public nuisance under
Rhode Island law.  This first phase did not consider the issues of
liability or damages, if any, related to the public nuisance claim.  In
October 2002, the court declared a mistrial as the jury, which was
split four to two in favor of the defendants, was unable to reach a
unanimous decision.  This was the first legal proceeding against the
Company to go to trial relating to the Company's lead pigment and lead-
based paint litigation.  Additional legal proceedings pending in other
jurisdictions have been scheduled for trial during 2003, and the
Company believes it is possible that additional legal proceedings could
be scheduled for trial during 2003 and subsequent years.

The Company believes that the litigation is without merit.  It also
expects that additional lead pigment and lead-based paint litigation
may be filed against it in the future asserting similar or different
legal theories and seeking similar or different types of damages and
relief.


THOMAS & BETTS: TN Securities Violations Suit Settlement Deemed Final
---------------------------------------------------------------------
The settlement of the consolidated securities class action filed
against Thomas & Betts Corporation is deemed final, after no objections
were filed against it in the United States District Court for the
Western District of Tennessee.

The first securities suit, entitled "Pifko v. Thomas & Betts Corp., et
al," was filed in February 2000, asserting claims under Rule 10b-5 and
Section 20 of the Securities and Exchange Act of 1934 against the
Corporation and its former chief executive officer and chief financial
officer.  The complaint alleged that the Company issued false and
misleading quarterly reports and press releases for the first
and third quarters of 1999.  The allegations were based on the
Company's announcement on November 17, 1999 that accounting errors had
been discovered requiring a restatement of results for those two
quarters.  

The plaintiffs filed an amended complaint in June 2000, adding several
new class representatives.  The amended complaint repeated the claims
in the original complaint and added allegations concerning certain
transactions, which were alleged to have been improper or in violation
of generally accepted accounting principles.

In August 2000, the Company issued a press release announcing material
accounting charges to be taken in the second quarter 2000.  Following
issuance of the press release, plaintiffs' counsel requested that the
oral argument on defendants' motion to dismiss be canceled and that
they be given time to replead to include allegations incorporating the
matters disclosed in the August press release.  The court granted
their request.

Before the second amended pleading was served, a new securities class
action, entitled "Nuckowski v. Thomas & Betts Corp., et al," was
filed in the same court.  The suit asserted claims on behalf of a
proposed class of purchasers of Thomas & Betts common stock between
February 15 and August 21, 2000.  

Like the first suit, the claims were based on alleged violations of
Rule 10b-5 and Section 20 of the Securities and Exchange Act of 1934.  
The complaint essentially incorporated the disclosures in the August
2000 press release and alleged that defendants knowingly or recklessly
released financial statements and press releases which failed to
disclose the matters covered in the August press release.

In September 2000, plaintiffs in the "Pifko" action filed a second
amended complaint to expand the class period to cover all purchasers
from the original class inception date, April 28, 1999, through August
21, 2000.  It also added allegations related to information contained
in the August press release.

In December 2000, the court issued an order consolidating all the
related cases into a single action, and appointing lead plaintiffs.  In
accordance with the order, the plaintiffs filed a consolidated
complaint on January 25, 2001.  The consolidated complaint essentially
repeated the allegations in the earlier complaints described above.

In March 2001, defendants moved to dismiss the consolidated complaint.  
Before any argument on that motion occurred, however, plaintiffs
indicated to the court an intention to file a related complaint arising
from the same events against the Company's auditors, KPMG LLP, a
complaint which defendants did file on July 31, 2001.  KPMG
subsequently moved to dismiss the complaint.  

In an opinion dated April 8, 2002, the court denied the Company's
motion to dismiss, granted in part and denied in part the motion to
dismiss on behalf of the individual defendants, and granted the motion
to dismiss by KPMG.  The Company and the plaintiffs subsequently agreed
to retain a mediator to assist with settlement negotiations.  The court
agreed to a brief adjournment to allow the mediation to occur.  The
mediation was conducted on September 12-13, 2002, and based on
agreements reached, the parties signed a memorandum of understanding
shortly thereafter settling all claims in the action against the
Corporation and the individual defendants.

The terms of the memorandum of understanding were incorporated
into a stipulation of settlement, which received preliminary
approval from the court on November 5, 2002.  After notice to the
class, the court held a final hearing and approved the settlement on
December 20, 2002.  At the hearing, the court entered judgment
dismissing all claims in the action against the Corporation and the
individual defendants.  No appeals were filed within the time allowed.
The settlement is now final.


VERSATA INC.: CA Court Grants Approval To Securities Lawsuit Settlement
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Northern District of
California approved the settlement proposed by Versata, Inc. to settle
the consolidated securities class action pending against Versata, Inc.
and certain of its current and former officers and directors.

The suit alleges claims under section 10(b) and section 20(a) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and claims under sections 11 and 15 of
the Securities Act of 1933.  The amended complaint sought an
unspecified amount of damages on behalf of persons who purchased the
Company's stock during a class period between March 31, 2000 and April
30, 2001.

In July 2002, the Company reached an agreement with the plaintiffs to
settle the suit in order to avoid protracted and expensive litigation
and the uncertainty of the outcome at a trial.  The agreement for
settlement does not constitute any admission of wrongdoing on the part
of the Company or the individual defendants.  

The Company settlement calls for a payment of $9.75 million in cash by
its insurance carriers, the issuance of 200,000 shares of its common
stock, and for certain corporate therapeutics.  The holders of the
settlement stock have a put option of $3.50 per share during a period
of 20 trading days commencing one year from the date of distribution;
provided however, the put options shall expire if Versata shares trade
above $3.50 per share for 15 consecutive trading days during the one
year period following the date of distribution of the settlement stock.

On February 14, 2003, the court approved the settlement agreement.  The
Company accrued $700,000 for this liability in accrued restructuring
and other in fiscal 2002.


                     Meetings, Conferences & Seminars


* Scheduled Events for Class Action Professionals
-------------------------------------------------

March 20-21, 2003
FUNDAMENTALS OF INSURANCE COVERAGE LAW
Mealey Publications
The Westin Hotel, Philadelphia
Contact: 1-800-MEALEYS; 610-768-7800; mealeyseminars@lexisnexis.com

March 23-24, 2003
CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL UPDATE
Bridgeport Continuing Education
Long Beach
Contact: 818-505-1490

March 27-28, 2003
ASBESTOS LITIGATION
Hotel Nikko, San Francisco
Contact: 1-888-224-2480; http://www.americanconference.com  

April 2-5, 2003
INSURANCE INSOLVENCY & REINSURANCE ROUNDTABLE
Mealey Publications
The Fairmont Scottsdale Princess, AZ
Contact: 1-800-MEALEYS; 610-768-7800; mealeyseminars@lexisnexis.com

April 3, 2003
ASBESTOS LITIGATION CONFERENCE: THE NEW BATTLEGROUND
Glasser Legalworks
New York Helmsley Hotel, New York City
Contact: 800-308-1700; 973-890-0058

April 4-5, 2003
TOXIC TORT IN CALIFORNIA
Bridgeport Continuing Education
San Francisco
Contact: 818-505-1490

April 4-5, 2003
TOXIC TORT AND ENVIRONMENTAL IN CALIFORNIA
Bridgeport Continuing Education
Contact: 818-505-1490

April 8, 2003
SILICA LITIGATION CONFERENCE
Mealey Publications
The Ritz-Carlton Hotel Boston
Contact: 1-800-MEALEYS; 610-768-7800; mealeyseminars@lexisnexis.com

April 10-11, 2003
HANDLING CONSTRUCTION RISKS 2003:
ALLOCATE NOW OR LITIGATE LATER
Practising Law Institute
PLI New York Center
Contact: 800-260-4PLI; info@pli.edu.

April 15, 2003
WALL STREET FORUM: ASBESTOS
Mealey Publications
The Ritz-Carlton Hotel Battery Park
Contact: 1-800-MEALEYS; 610-768-7800; mealeyseminars@lexisnexis.com

April 28-29, 2003
EPHEDRA LITIGATION CONFERENCE
Mealey Publications
The Ritz-Carlton Huntington Hotel & Spa, Pasadena, CA
Contact: 1-800-MEALEYS; 610-768-7800; mealeyseminars@lexisnexis.com

April 28-29, 2003
BAD FAITH AND PUNITIVE DAMAGES
Hotel Nikko, San Francisco
Contact: 1-888-224-2480; http://www.americanconference.com  

May 1, 2003
TOXIC TORT IN CALIFORNIA
Bridgeport Continuing Education
Los Angeles
Contact: 818-505-1490

May 1-2, 2003
ASBESTOS LITIGATION 2003
Andrews Publication
New Orleans Grande Hotel, New Orleans
Contact: seminar@andrewspub.com

May 5-6, 2003
THE CURRENT STATE OF MEDICAL MALPRACTICE IN PA & NJ
Mealey Publications
The Ritz-Carlton Hotel, Philadelphia
Contact: 1-800-MEALEYS; 610-768-7800; mealeyseminars@lexisnexis.com

May 7-8, 2003
MANAGING MOLD LIABILITIES
Bridgeport Continuing Education
San Francisco
Contact: 818-505-1490

May 14-15, 2003
CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL UPDATE
Bridgeport Continuing Education
San Jose
Contact: 818-505-1490

June 2-3, 2003
BAYCOL LITIGATION CONFERENCE
Mealey Publications
The Ritz-Carlton Hotel Amelia Island, FL
Contact: 1-800-MEALEYS; 610-768-7800; mealeyseminars@lexisnexis.com

June 2-3, 2003
ASBESTOS BANKRUPTCY CONFERENCE
Mealey Publications
The Westin Hotel Philadelphia
Contact: 1-800-MEALEYS; 610-768-7800; mealeyseminars@lexisnexis.com

June 9, 2003
ANTI-SLAPP STATUTE CONFERENCE
Mealey Publications
The Ritz-Carlton Huntington Hotel & Spa
Contact: 1-800-MEALEYS; 610-768-7800; mealeyseminars@lexisnexis.com

June 12-13, 2003
CCA-TREA-TED WOOD LITIGATION CONFERENCE
Mealey Publications
The Ritz-Carlton Hotel Amelia Island, FL
Contact: 1-800-MEALEYS; 610-768-7800; mealeyseminars@lexisnexis.com

June 12-13, 2003
ENVIRONMENTAL INSURANCE: PAST, PRESENT AND FUTURE
American Law Institute
Boston
Contact: 215-243-1614; 800-CLE-NEWS x1614

June 16-17, 2003
LITIGATING EMPLOYMENT DISCRIMINATION & SEXUAL HARASSMENT CLAIMS
Practising Law Institute
PLI New York Center
Contact: 800-260-4PLI; info@pli.edu.

June 16-17, 2003
ASBESTOS LITIGATION 101 CONFERENCE
Mealey Publications
The Fairmont Hotel, Dallas
Contact: 1-800-MEALEYS; 610-768-7800; mealeyseminars@lexisnexis.com

June 26-27, 2003
THE CLASS ACTION LITIGATION SUMMIT
Northstar Conferences
The Westin Embassy Row, Washington, DC
Contact: 866-265-1975; 212-596-6006; cservice@northstarconferences.com

August 1, 2003
CLASS ACTION LITIGATION 2003: PROSECUTION AND DEFENSE STRATEGIES
Practising Law Institute
PLI New York Center
Contact: 800-260-4PLI; info@pli.edu.

September 8-9, 2003
CORPORATE GOVERNANCE: LIABILITY OF CORPORATE
OFFICERS AND DIRECTORS
Mealey Publications
The Ritz-Carlton Hotel Amelia Island, FL
Contact: 1-800-MEALEYS; 610-768-7800; mealeyseminars@lexisnexis.com

September 19-21, 2003
THE 20TH TOBACCO PRODUCTS LIABILITY PROJECT CONFERENCE
Northeastern University School of Law
Contact: scuri@tplp.org

November 13-14, 2003
ASBESTOS LITIGATION IN THE 21ST CENTURY
ALI-ABA
New Orleans
Contact: 215-243-1614; 800-CLE-NEWS x1614

TBA
Water Contamination Litigation Conference
Mealey Publications
Contact: 1-800-MEALEYS; 610-768-7800; mealeyseminars@lexisnexis.com

TBA
Fair Labor Standards Conference
Mealey Publications
Contact: 1-800-MEALEYS; 610-768-7800; mealeyseminars@lexisnexis.com


* Online Teleconferences
------------------------

March 06-31, 2003
ETHICAL CONSIDERATIONS IN MASS TORT AND CLASS
ACTION LITIGATION IN TEXAS
CLE Online Seminar
Contact: 512-778-5665; info@cleonline.com

March 06-31, 2003
NBI PRESENTS "LITIGATING THE CLASS ACTION LAWSUIT IN FLORIDA
CLE Online Seminar
Contact: 512-778-5665; info@cleonline.com

April 2, 2003
TOXIC MOLD: WHAT REAL ESTATE PRACTITIONERS NEED TO KNOW NOW
Practising Law Institute
PLI New York Center
Contact: 800-260-4PLI; info@pli.edu.

April 15, 2003
LITIGATING POSTTRAUMATIC STRESS DISORDER
ABA-CLE
Contact: 800-285-2221; abacle@abanet.org

May 14, 2003
CLASS ACTION BASICS
ABA-CLE
Contact: 800-285-2221; abacle@abanet.org

EXPERT WITNESS ADMISSIBILITY IN MOLD CASES
LawCommerce.Com/Mealey's
Online Streaming Video
Contact: customerservice@lawcommerce.com

INTRODUCTION TO CLASS ACTIONS AND LARGE RECOVERIES
Big Class Action
Contact: seminars@bigclassaction.com

NON-TRADITIONAL DEFENDANTS IN ASBESTOR LITIGATION
Online Streaming Video
LawCommerce.Com/Mealey's
Contact: customerservice@lawcommerce.com

PAXIL LITIGATION
Online Streaming Video
LawCommerce.Com/Mealey's
Contact: customerservice@lawcommerce.com

RECENT DEVELOPMENTS INVOLVING BAYCOL
Online Streaming Video
LawCommerce.Com/Mealey's
Contact: customerservice@lawcommerce.com

RECOVERIES
Big Class Action
Contact: seminars@bigclassaction.com

SELECTION OF MOLD LITIGATION EXPERTS: WHO YOU NEED ON YOUR TEAM
Online Streaming Video
LawCommerce.Com/Mealey's
Contact: customerservice@lawcommerce.com

SHOULD I FILE A CLASS ACTION?
LawCommerce.Com / Law Education Institute
Contact: customerservice@lawcommerce.com

THE EFFECTS OF ASBESTOS ON THE PULMONARY SYSTEM
Online Streaming Video
LawCommerce.Com/Mealey's
Contact: customerservice@lawcommerce.com

THE STATE OF ASBESTOS LITIGATION: JUDICIAL PANEL DISCUSSION
Online Streaming Video
LawCommerce.Com/Mealey's
Contact: customerservice@lawcommerce.com

TRYING AN ASBESTOS CASE
LawCommerce.Com
Contact: customerservice@lawcommerce.com

______________________________________________________________________
The Meetings, Conferences and Seminars column appears in the Class
Action Reporter each Wednesday.  Submissions via e-mail to
carconf@beard.com are encouraged.


                     New Securities Fraud Cases


ANDRX CORPORATION: Bernard Gross Commences Securities Suit in S.D. FL
---------------------------------------------------------------------
The Law Offices of Bernard M. Gross PC initiated a securities class
action in the United States District Court for the Southern District of
Florida, on behalf of all persons and entities who purchased the common
stock of Andrx Corporation (Nasdaq:ADRX) between October 31, 2002 and
March 4, 2003, inclusive.  The suit names as defendants the Company,
Richard J. Lane and Angelo C. Malahias.

The complaint charges the defendants with violations of Sections 10(b)
and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and Rule 10b-5, by
issuing a series of materially false and misleading statements to the
market during the class period.  Specifically, as alleged in the
Complaint, throughout the class period, defendants issued positive
statements about the Company's ability to obtain the approval of the
Food and Drug Administration (FDA) of Andrx's generic version of
Wellbutrin SR, an antidepressant drug.

On October 31, 2002, Andrx issued a press release stating that it was
"continu(ing) to build inventories of (Wellbutrin SR) and other generic
products prior to their launches."  Andrx failed to disclose, however,
that its version of the drug had a limited expiration date, and that if
it were not marketed by year end 2002, or soon thereafter, the Company
would be forced to write the value of that inventory off or at least
establish a significant reserve for it.

On March 5, 2003, Andrx stunned the market by announcing that it would
record a $26.3 million charge in its fourth quarter 2002 results,
related primarily to the Company's inventories of its generic
Wellbutrin SR/Zyban.  The Company's stock price dropped 31% from $11.51
on March 4 to $7.89 at the close on March 5, 2003 on heavy trading
volumes.

For more details, contact Deborah R. Gross, Susan R. Gross by Mail:
1515 Locust Street, Second Floor, Philadelphia, PA 19102 by Phone:
866-561-3600 (toll-free) or 215-561-3600 by E-mail:
susang@bernardmgross.com or debbie@bernardmgross.com or visit the
firm's Website: http://www.bernardmgross.com


ADC TELECOMMUNICATIONS: Kirby McInerney Commences Securities Suit in MN
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Kirby McInerney & Squire, LLP initiated a securities class action in
the United States District Court for the District of Minnesota on
behalf of all purchasers of ADC Telecommunications, Inc. (Nasdaq:ADCT)
common stock during the period from November 28, 2000 to March 28,
2001.

The action charges the Company and two of its senior officers with
violations of Sections 10(b) and Rule 10b-5 of the Securities Exchange
Act of 1934.  The violations, as the complaint alleges, stem from the
reckless omission and dissemination of allegedly false and misleading
statements, which had the effect - during the class period - of
artificially inflating the price of ADC's shares.

As the complaint alleges, ADC forecasted strong, positive growth for
the 2001 fiscal year, irrespective of expected overall decreases in
telecom spending. ADC supplies broadband-network equipment, software
and devices to communications services networks that provide data,
video and voice communications over various networks to residential and
business customers.

In a press release dated November 28, 2000, ADC cited both broadband
access and optical components as means to take advantage of a shift in
Internet carrier spending and reap benefits.  The Company repeatedly
echoed these predictions throughout the class period.

However, on March 28, 2001, ADC announced that it would not meet
expectations, and that its fiscal 2001 earnings guidance would be
lowered.  Additionally, as many as 4,000 jobs were cut when ADC
revealed its true financial performance and business prospects.
Financial results and predictions were, in fact, false and misleading
throughout the class period, and investors accrued damages from ADC's
artificially inflated stock prices during this time.

For more details, contact Ira M. Press or Elaine Mui by Mail: 830 Third
Avenue, 10th Floor New York, New York 10022 by Phone: (212) 317-2300 or
(888) 529-4787 by E-Mail: emui@kmslaw.com  


ADC TELECOMMUNICATIONS: Charles Piven Commences Securities Suit in MN
---------------------------------------------------------------------
The Law Offices Of Charles J. Piven, PA initiated a securities class
action on behalf of shareholders who purchased, converted, exchanged or
otherwise acquired the common stock of ADC Telecommunications, Inc.
(Nasdaq:ADCT) between November 2, 2000 and March 28, 2001, inclusive.  
The case is pending in the United States District Court for the
District of Minnesota.

The action charges that defendants violated federal securities laws by
issuing a series of materially false and misleading statements to the
market throughout the class period which statements had the effect of
artificially inflating the market price of the Company's securities.

For more details, contact Charles J. Piven by Mail: The World Trade
Center-Baltimore, 401 East Pratt Street, Suite 2525, Baltimore,
Maryland 21202 by Phone: 410-986-0036 or by E-mail:
hoffman@pivenlaw.com


ASTROPOWER INC.: Abbey Gardy Launches Securities Fraud Suit in DE Court
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Abbey Gardy, LLP initiated a securities class action in the United
States District Court for the District of Delaware on behalf of all
persons or entities who purchased securities of AstroPower Inc.
(Nasdaq: APWR) between February 22, 2002 and August 1, 2002, inclusive.

The complaint alleges that defendants violated Sections 10(b) and 20(a)
of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and Rule 10b-5 promulgated
thereunder, by issuing a series of material misrepresentations to the
market during the class period, thereby artificially inflating the
price of AstroPower securities.  Specifically, the complaint alleges
that defendants issued a series of materially false and misleading
statements maintaining that AstroPower was well positioned to take
advantage of the increasing demand for solar power products.

However, throughout the class period, the Company was unable to
effectively manage its expanding and increasingly complex operations
and it was unable to allocate resources among its various manufacturing
facilities to effectively meet regional demand or to tailor its
production capacity to actual demand.  Therefore, to maintain the
illusion that its operations were successful, the Company reported
artificially inflated revenue and earnings by, among other things,
recording revenue in advance of shipment, contrary to its stated
principles of revenue recognition.

On August 1, 2002, after the close of trading, the Company announced
its results for the second quarter ended June 30, 2002, reporting that
revenues and net income had not grown but, on the contrary, second
quarter income was $365,000, or $0.02 per share compared to $1.7
million, or $0.07 per share in the year-earlier second quarter of 2001
and revenue of $20.4 million represented only a 1% increase over
reported revenue for the prior quarter.  On this announcement
AstroPower's share price plunged 48%, or $7.12, to $7.77.

For more details, contact Nancy Kaboolian by Phone: 1-800-889-3701 by
E-mail: NKaboolian@abbeygardy.com or visit the firm's Website:
http://www.abbeygardy.com


BAYER AG: Charles Piven Commences Securities Fraud Lawsuit in S.D. NY
---------------------------------------------------------------------
The Law Offices Of Charles J. Piven, PA initiated a securities class
action on behalf of purchasers of Bayer AG American Depositary Shares
(ADRs) (NYSE:BAY) between May 26, 1999 and February 21, 2003,
inclusive.  Prior to January 23, 2002, Bayer AG ADRs traded on the
NASDAQ under the symbol BAYZY.  The case is pending in the United
States District Court for the Southern District of New York against the
Company and certain present and former members of its Board of
Management.

The action charges that defendants violated federal securities laws by
issuing a series of materially false and misleading statements to the
market throughout the class period which statements had the effect of
artificially inflating the market price of the Company's securities.

For more details, contact Charles J. Piven by Mail: The World Trade
Center-Baltimore, 401 East Pratt Street, Suite 2525, Baltimore,
Maryland 21202 by Phone: 410-986-0036 or by E-mail:
hoffman@pivenlaw.com


BAYER AG: Wolf Popper Commences Securities Fraud Suit in S.D. New York
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Wolf Popper LLP initiated a securities class action against Bayer (AG)
Aktiengesellschaft (NYSE: BAY), and certain present and former members
of its Board of Management, on behalf of purchasers of Bayer AG
American Depositary Shares (ADRs) from May 26, 1999 through February
21, 2003.  (Prior to January 23, 2002, Bayer AG ADRs traded on the
NASDAQ under the symbol BAYZY.)  

The suit, filed in the US District Court for the Southern District of
New York, alleges, among other things, that throughout the class period
defendants misrepresented Bayer AG's success in marketing it's Baycol
cholesterol lowering drug.  Defendants' statements were materially
false and misleading because Bayer AG's own scientists were stating
internally that Baycol, when administered with other popular
medications or at high dosages, caused unacceptable risk of serious
side effects.

In fact, throughout the class period, Bayer AG was informed that
patients taking Baycol were experiencing serious and life threatening
side effects. Baycol was belatedly withdrawn from the market in August
2001 after the FDA raised serious concerns about the safety of Baycol
in light of reports of Baycol patients dying.  The true facts
concerning defendants' knowledge of the dangers of Baycol and the
Company's potential liability to Baycol patients were not completely
disclosed until February 22, 2003, in connection with court filings in
various personal injury actions commenced against Bayer AG by persons
who had been prescribed Baycol and had suffered severe side effects.  

These court documents demonstrated defendants' early knowledge of the
risk of serious or life threatening side effects to patients taking
Baycol, including the knowledge that patients taking Baycol were found
to have 5 to 10 times the chance of developing a life threatening
illness - rhabdomyolysis - as patients taking other similar medicines.  
The price per share of Bayer AG ADRs fell approximately 17% when Baycol
was withdrawn from the market in August 2001.

Following the February 22, 2003 disclosure of the true state of
defendants' knowledge of the dangers of Baycol, Bayer AG ADRs declined
an additional 27%, from $17.15 per share to $12.58 days after the
revelation -- more than 68% below the trading price at the beginning of
the class period ($39.75).

For more details, contact Michael A. Schwartz by Mail: 845 Third
Avenue, New York, NY 10022-6689 by Phone: 212-451-9668 or 877-370-7703
by Fax: 212-486-2093 or 877-370-7704 by E-mail:
mschwartz@wolfpopper.com or visit the firm's Website:
http://www.wolfpopper.com


CAMINUS CORPORATION: Charles Piven Commences Securities Suit in S.D. NY
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
The Law Offices Of Charles J. Piven, PA initiated a securities class
action on behalf of shareholders who purchased, converted, exchanged or
otherwise acquired the common stock of Caminus Corporation
(Nasdaq:CAMZ) between February 12, 2002 and July 8, 2002, inclusive, in
the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York.

The action charges that defendants violated federal securities laws by
issuing a series of materially false and misleading statements to the
market throughout the class period which statements had the effect of
artificially inflating the market price of the Company's securities.

For more details, contact Charles J. Piven by Mail: The World Trade
Center-Baltimore, 401 East Pratt Street, Suite 2525, Baltimore,
Maryland 21202 by Phone: 410-986-0036 or by E-mail:
hoffman@pivenlaw.com


CAMINUS CORPORATION: Milberg Weiss Commences Securities Suit in S.D. NY
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Milberg Weiss Bershad Hynes & Lerach LLP initiated a securities class
action on behalf of purchasers of the securities of Caminus Corporation
(NASDAQ: CAMZ) between February 12, 2002 and July 8, 2002, inclusive,
in the United States District Court, Southern District of New York,
against the Company and:

    (1) David Stoner,

    (2) John Andrus and

    (3) Joseph Dwyer

The complaint alleges that defendants violated Sections 10(b) and 20(a)
of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and Rule 10b-5 promulgated
thereunder, by issuing a series of material misrepresentations to the
market between February 12, 2002 and July 8, 2002, thereby artificially
inflating the price of Caminus securities.

The complaint alleges that Caminus is a provider of software and
strategic consulting services that facilitate energy trading,
transaction processing, risk management and decision support within the
wholesale energy markets.  Throughout the class period, as alleged in
the complaint, defendants issued statements regarding the Company's
financial performance and filed a prospectus which described the market
for energy trading software.

These statements were materially false and misleading because they
failed to disclose and/or misrepresented the following adverse facts,
among others:

     (i) that the Company's business was coming under increasing
         pressure as many of Caminus's clients were deferring purchases
         and/or determining not to proceed at all with planned
         purchases;

    (ii) that the Company's strategic consulting business was not
         performing to the Company's expectations and would not be able
         to contribute the revenues and earnings that were anticipated;
         and

   (iii) that the market for Caminus's products was quickly
         deteriorating as many energy companies were being heavily
         scrutinized by regulatory authorities, experiencing declining
         financial condition and grappling to fix the deficiencies in
         their respective businesses.

Moreover, energy trading -- an area where Caminus provided software
systems -- was in steep decline as many of the major players exited the
field amid scandal.

On July 8, 2002, the Company shocked the market when it announced that
revenues for the second quarter would be $18 million -- $7 million less
than previously promised on June 3rd -- and that the Company now would
experience a loss of between $0.18 to $0.20 per share as compared to
the $0.03 per share profit previously represented.  Following this
report, shares of Caminus fell $2.96 per share, or $49.7%, to close at
$2.99 per share, on extremely heavy trading volume.

For more details, contact Steven G. Schulman by Mail: One Pennsylvania
Plaza, 49th fl. New York, NY 10119-0165 by Phone: (800) 320-5081 by E-
mail: Caminuscase@milbergNY.com or visit the firm's Website:
http://www.milberg.com   


INTERCEPT INC.: Bernstein Liebhard Commences Securities Suit in N.D. GA
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Bernstein Liebhard & Lifshitz LLP initiated a securities class action
on behalf of all persons who acquired securities of InterCept, Inc.
(NASDAQ: ICPT) between September 16, 2002 and January 9, 2003,
inclusive, in the United States District Court for the Northern
District of Georgia, Atlanta Division against the Company and:

     (1) John W. Collins,

     (2) G. Lynn Boggs,

     (3) Scott Meyerhoff and

     (4) Garrett M. Bender

The complaint charges that Defendants violated Sections 10(b) and 20(a)
of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and Rule 10b-5 promulgated
thereunder, by issuing a series of material misrepresentations to the
market during the class period, thereby artificially inflating the
price of InterCept securities.

Specifically, the complaint alleges that throughout the class period,
defendants made false assurances regarding the significance of their
adult pornography Internet portion of the Company's merchant processing
business and failed to disclose that VISA regulations implemented on
November 1, 2002 caused a material loss of business.

The complaint further alleges that defendants knew, by the time their
fourth quarter earnings estimate was issued that InterCept would suffer
a material loss of business because their customers had failed to
become sponsored merchants under the new VISA regulations.

On January 9, 2003, InterCept announced that it was revising its fourth
quarter 2002 earnings per share estimate downward. The Company cited
"reduced revenues in our merchant area result(ing) primarily from the
iBill operations, which experienced a large loss of merchant customers
following the implementation of a new credit card association rule in
mid-November."

The market's reaction to InterCept's disclosures was swift and severe.
Following these disclosures, the market price of InterCept's common
stock price dropped from a high of almost $19.11 per share during the
class period to as low as $7.00 per share at the close of trading on
January 10, 2003, after the disclosures were made.

For more details, contact Ms. Linda Flood, Director of Shareholder
Relations by Mail: LLP, 10 East 40th Street, New York, New York 10016,
by Phone: (800) 217-1522 or (212) 779-1414 or by E-mail:
ICPT@bernlieb.com.  


INTERSTATE BAKERIES: Milberg Weiss Commences Securities Suit in W.D. MO
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Milberg Weiss Bershad Hynes & Lerach LLP initiated a securities class
action on behalf of purchasers of the securities of Interstate Bakeries
Corporation (NYSE: IBC) between September 17, 2002 and December 17,
2002, inclusive.  The action is pending in the United States District
Court, Western District of Missouri against the Company and:

     (1) Charles A. Sullivan,

     (2) James Elsesser,

     (3) Michael Kafoure and

     (4) Frank Coffey

The complaint alleges that defendants violated Sections 10(b) and 20(a)
of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and Rule 10b-5 promulgated
thereunder, by issuing a series of material misrepresentations to the
market between September 17, 2002 and December 17, 2002, thereby
artificially inflating the price of IBC securities.  The suit alleges
that IBC produces, markets, distributes and sells a wide range of
bread, rolls, snack cakes, donuts, sweet goods and related products.

Throughout the class period, as alleged in the complaint, defendants
issued statements regarding the Company's financial performance and
filed a 10-Q with the Securities and Exchange Commission concerning the
Company's financial results.  These statements were materially false
and misleading because they failed to disclose and/or misrepresented
the following adverse facts, among others:

     (i) that at least as early as September 17, 2002, IBC was
         experiencing a negative variance with respect to sweet goods
         as compared to the prior year and, therefore, defendants could
         not have perceived that sales of sweet goods were currently
         returning to normal levels;

    (ii) that IBC did not maintain sufficient centralized control over
         price increases to ensure that the Company could raise prices
         on bread products without damaging profitability.  Rather,
         defendants knew that an increase in prices typically would
         result in a sacrifice in market share and that IBC was exposed
         to significant risk with respect to its ability to attain
         profits based upon commodity prices; and

   (iii) that sales on single item snack cakes, the Company's highest
         profit margin product, had dropped precipitously.

On December 17, 2002, the Company shocked the market when it announced
that earnings for the second quarter, which ended on November 16, 2002,
were $11.6 million, or $0.26 per share, down 36.5% from $21 million, or
$0.41 per share during the same period in the previous year on
sequentially flat sales.  On this news, shares of IBC fell $8.16 to $15
-- their lowest price in 19 months.

For more details, contact Steven G. Schulman by Mail: One Pennsylvania
Plaza, 49th fl. New York, NY 10119-0165 by Phone: (800) 320-5081 by E-
mail: ibccase@milbergNY.com or visit the firm's Website:
http://www.milberg.com  


KING PHARMACEUTICALS: Charles Piven Launches Securities Suit in E.D. TN
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
The Law Offices Of Charles J. Piven, P.A. initiated a securities class
action on behalf of shareholders who purchased, converted, exchanged or
otherwise acquired the common stock of King Pharmaceuticals, Inc.
(NYSE:KG) between February 16, 2000 and March 10, 2003, inclusive, in
the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Tennessee,
Northeastern Division at Greeneville.

The action charges that defendants violated federal securities laws by
issuing a series of materially false and misleading statements to the
market throughout the class period which statements had the effect of
artificially inflating the market price of the Company's securities.

For more details, contact Charles J. Piven by Mail: The World Trade
Center-Baltimore, 401 East Pratt Street, Suite 2525, Baltimore,
Maryland 21202 by Phone: 410-986-0036 or by E-mail:
hoffman@pivenlaw.com  


KING PHARMACEUTICALS: Kirby McInerney Commences Securities Suit in TN
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Kirby McInerney & Squire, LLP initiated a securities class action in
the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Tennessee
on behalf of all purchasers of King Pharmaceuticals, Inc. (NYSE:KG)
common stock during the period from April 26, 1999 to March 11, 2003.

The action charges King Pharmaceuticals and certain of its senior
officers with violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934.  The violations, as the complaint alleges,
include issuance of materially false and misleading statements
concerning the Company's business operations and earnings, which had
the effect - during the class period - of artificially inflating the
price of King Pharmaceuticals' shares.

The Company manufactures, markets and sells primarily branded
prescription pharmaceutical products to general and family
practitioners and internal medicine physicians and hospitals across the
United States.  As the complaint alleges, King Pharmaceuticals issued
fraudulent and deceptive information regarding business forecasts,
operations and earnings throughout the class period.

In particular, King Pharmaceuticals misrepresented that the prices paid
by governmental Medicaid agencies were the "best price" - i.e., the
cheapest price offered to distributors and other purchasers - for a
particular drug, resulting in government overpayment for the drugs.  
The complaint also alleges, among other things, that King
Pharmaceuticals misstated and/or omitted facts regarding revenue
subject to "pharmaceutical rebate" payments provided by the Company.

On March 11, 2003, King Pharmaceuticals disclosed that it was under
investigation by the SEC, and certain materials have been subpoenaed,
including: the Company's "best price" lists, documents related to the
pricing of the Company's pharmaceutical products to any governmental
Medicaid agency during 1999, and documents regarding the accrual and
payment of rebates on Altace, the Company's blood-pressure drug.  

Upon the revelation of governmental scrutiny, the price of King
Pharmaceutical's stock dropped 23% in a single day.  Financial results
and predictions were, in fact, false and misleading throughout the
class period, and investors accrued damages from King Pharmaceuticals'
artificially inflated stock prices during this time.

For more details, contact Ira M. Press, or Elaine Mui by Mail: 830
Third Avenue, 10th Floor New York, New York 10022 by Phone: (212) 317-
2300 or (888) 529-4787 by E-Mail: emui@kmslaw.com  


MICHAELS STORES: Federman & Sherwood Lodges Securities Suit in N.D. TX
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Federman & Sherwood initiated a securities class action in the United
States District Court for the Northern District of Texas on behalf of
persons who purchased stock of Michaels Stores (NYSE: MIK) between
August 8, 2002 and November 7, 2002, inclusive.

The complaint alleges that defendants violated Sections 10(b) and 20(a)
of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 promulgated
thereunder by the Securities and Exchange Commission by issuing a
series of materially false and misleading statements to the market.  As
stated in the suit, Michaels Stores repeatedly represented their
financial condition was strong and that the Company was increasing its
market share and would continue to do so in the foreseeable future.

For more details, contact William B. Federman by Mail: 120 N. Robinson,
Suite 2720, Oklahoma City, OK 73102 by Phone: (405) 235-1560 by Fax:
(405) 239-2112 by E-mail: wfederman@aol.com


ROBERTSON STEPHENS: Pomerantz Haudek Lodges Securities Suit in S.D. NY
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Pomerantz Haudek Block Grossman & Gross LLP initiated a securities
class action in the United States District Court for the Southern
District of New York against Robertson Stephens, Inc. and its former
managing director and senior research analyst Paul Johnson on behalf of
investors who purchased the common stock of Corvis Corporation
(Nasdaq:CORV) during the period from August 22, 2000 through January
29, 2001, inclusive.

The lawsuit alleges that defendants issued false and misleading analyst
reports on Corvis that contradicted defendant Johnson's privately held
beliefs.  As a result of defendants' false and misleading statements,
the market price of Corvis common stock was artificially inflated,
maintained or stabilized during the class period.

On January 9, 2003, the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) and
the National Association of Securities Dealers charged Paul Johnson for
issuing "Buy" ratings on Corvis to the public while privately advising
a group of Robertson Stephens limited partnerships (in which Johnson
had invested) to sell their Corvis shares.  The SEC complaint also
charged Johnson with issuing positive research reports on Redback
Networks, Inc. and Sycamore Networks, Inc. in which Johnson praised
proposed acquisitions by Redback and Sycamore of two private companies
in which Johnson had undisclosed investments.

For more details, contact Andrew G. Tolan by Phone: (888) 476-6529
((888) 4-POMLAW) or by E-mail: agtolan@pomlaw.com


ROYAL AHOLD: Pomerantz Haudek Launches Securities Fraud Suit in S.D. NY
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Pomerantz Haudek Block Grossman & Gross LLP initiated a securities
class action in the United States District Court for the Southern
District of New York against Royal Ahold NV (NYSE:AHO), two of the
Company's top officers/directors, and the Company's independent
auditor, Deloitte & Touche Registered Accountants, on behalf of
investors who purchased the American Depository Receipts (ADRs) of
Royal Ahold during the period between May 15, 2001 and February 21,
2003, inclusive.

The lawsuit alleges that defendants issued false and misleading
statements concerning the Company's publicly reported earnings. In
particular, defendants overstated operating earnings by $500 million in
fiscal years 2001 and 2002 by recognizing more money in promotional
allowances provided by suppliers to promote their goods than that
Company actually received.

Before the market opened on February 24, 2003, Royal Ahold announced
that it will restate its financial statements for fiscal year 2001 and
the first three quarters of fiscal year 2002 to correct the
inappropriate accounting for discounts from suppliers at its U.S.
Foodservice division, which is headquartered in Columbia, Maryland.  
The Company also announced that its Chief Executive and Chief Financial
Officers, defendants Cees van der Hoeven and Michael Meurs,
respectively, had been fired and that several U.S. executives had been
suspended.

In addition, the Company announced that it has uncovered "questionable"
transactions in its investigation of certain transactions and the
accounting treatment thereof at its Argentine subsidiary, Disco.  In
response to the Company's announcement, Royal Ahold's ADRs fell $6.52,
or 61%, to $4.16 on volume of 16,197,900 units traded. The Securities &
Exchange Commission (SEC) has launched an investigation of the
Company's accounting practices.

For more details, contact Andrew G. Tolan by Phone: (888) 476-6529
((888) 4-POMLAW) or by E-mail: agtolan@pomlaw.com



                              *********


S U B S C R I P T I O N   I N F O R M A T I O N

Class Action Reporter is a daily newsletter, co-published by
Bankruptcy Creditors' Service, Inc., Trenton, New Jersey, and
Beard Group, Inc., Washington, D.C.  Enid Sterling, Aurora Fatima
Antonio and Lyndsey Resnick, Editors.

Copyright 2002.  All rights reserved.  ISSN 1525-2272.

This material is copyrighted and any commercial use, resale or
publication in any form (including e-mail forwarding, electronic re-
mailing and photocopying) is strictly prohibited without prior written
permission of the publishers.

Information contained herein is obtained from sources believed to be
reliable, but is not guaranteed.

The CAR subscription rate is $575 for six months delivered via e-mail.  
Additional e-mail subscriptions for members of the same firm for the
term of the initial subscription or balance thereof are $25 each.  For
subscription information, contact Christopher Beard at 240/629-3300.

                  * * *  End of Transmission  * * *